[vmception]

This is very inaccurate.

I dont really know where to start.

There are circumstances where you cant get your name on a building from a donation, there are circumstances that circumvent that requirement. There are circumstances where there is no tax deduction because the donation already occurred from another non profit.

These wealthy people are going to run circles around the the general understanding for another 100 years. Bite the bullet and pay a nonprofit lawyer to understand whats possible.

There are things you can do with asset valuations it just isnt that relevant

[KMag]

To be clear, you're asserting that by donating $1.1 billion in cash, they're likely getting more than that sum multiplied by their marginal tax rate in tax reduction?

I'm honestly curious what the loopholes would be.

[acchow]

Not a donation to a university.

However, rich people set up their own 501(c)(3) organizations to which they are boards of to get free flights, hotels, meals, etc from. Basically, instead of spending that money directly, they "spend" it via donations to their 501c3, and their 501c3 sends them on trips

[vmception]

much closer!

they donate to their own 501c3, and that 501c3 can donate to the next thing that makes the actual headlines. But the important thing for the conversations had here is that their own 501c3 can also invest and grow money. It can have lots and lots of capital firepower. When it uses that, there is no tax deduction for the owner. And in an article or headline, there is no information to extrapolate whether they were motivated by a tax deduction. thats my main point.

From my perspective, People are so desperate to find an issue with a large money movement that it is clouding their ability to understand what to even look at whether there is an abuse, advantage or not.

[vmception]

To be clear, I'm not asserting that.